"Scientific Freedom" - a dangerous resolution that must be repealed (use this thread)

Argument: This resolution is against the concept of national sovereignty that the UN should protect, and it is therefore not the business of the UN to intervene in this matter.

Certain types of research (i.e. those deemed immoral or unsafe) were banned in my nation, for good reason, yet I now find that by joining the UN (whose main cause I believe in), that I am now expected to condone practices that I find to be morally corrupt.

I am all for the condemning certain practices through the UN, but forcing all Member States to agree to every scientific practice in existence opens the door for any crackpot to carry out horrific acts in the name of science.

I implore you to take this proposal seriously and repeal this dangerous resolution.

Yours

Colin
Supreme Spiritual Leader of The Nation

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 12 2004

Torching Witches

09-10-2004, 18:25

TilEnca posted this on the other thread:

"An arguement could be made that if you start saying what science can be researched and what can't, you put intolerable limits on freedom of expression. Science should not be limited by the government, because it puts the government in total control of people's lives. In a fictional world a man named Galileo (whose name might not have been spelt like that) discovered a lot, but the then Church did not want to lose it's power over the people, so they killed him.

Science should be free."

Unfortunately, I feel he missed the point. The strongest argument I can make (and, I hope, have already made) is that if you say "anything goes" now, what happens when something controversial comes along in the future - some scientific research that you don't agree with or, at least, should have strict controls on.

The way it is, the resolution allows anybody to carry out any research they want, and in light of current concerns about genetic modification of anything from maize to man, this resolution could easily be exploited for ill gain with legislation being the way it currently stands. That's dangerous, regardless of whether you think science should be pushed forward or not.

OOC: By the way, yes, you spelt Galileo right, but I don't think the Church killed him.

Snoogit

09-10-2004, 18:44

As a nation that endores all scientific research, we the United Socialist States of Snoogit (here to fore refered to as the USSS) cannot endorse this repeal.

Science is the basic fundamental force that guides our citizens to understanding and knowledge of our universe. We cannot simply ban certain scientific research because we deem it risky or controversial.

When Isaac Newton postulated gravity, and not God causes apples to fall from trees was he not considered controversial?

When Charles Darwin wrote the Theory of Evolution was he not (and perhaps still is) controversial?

If we cannot explore the hows, and the whys of life, and society, we will be left with nothing but an ignorant shell of an existance.

The Black New World

09-10-2004, 18:57

This resolution is against the concept of national sovereignty that the UN should protect, and it is therefore not the business of the UN to intervene in this matter

So basically we shouldn't cross the undefined borders on national sovereignty because you (both plural and singular) don't think we should. And, judging by your tone, you are presenting that opinion as fact. The UN can make any resolution it wants, it is only limited by democracy, the categories, and game mechanics.

That being said, you make a good point about unsafe practices. If you expand on that (maybe dropping the 'immoral' as it is too subjective for international legislation) and clean it up a bit we would gladly support it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Tekania

09-10-2004, 19:31

OOC: Galileo Galilei indeed was not "killed" by the church, he was put under house arrest for some time, but not killed. However, he was indeed persecuted by the Church, in the form of confinement for teaching and providing proof that the Copernican model of the solar system was correct, and the church established Ptolemaic model was in fact wrong.

IC:
I concur, maybe if the repeals resolutions base was off of ethical consideration rather than rhetoircal model of morals, I might agree. (Morality is a nasty deceitful beast, based off pathetic ignorance and blatant stupidity, ethics is a beautiful concept, based of philosophy and reason).

Torching Witches

09-10-2004, 20:09

Once again, I am not saying that scientific freedom is wrong, but this legislation is at best unnecessary, and at worst dangerous. The fact is that saying now that everybody should be free to carry out any scientific research they want is opening the door to all manner of nutcases, who might develop dangerous/environmentally-damaging/morally or ethically questionable (depending on your preference of adjective, although moral and ethical really mean the same damn thing when you come down to it) practices that put us all at risk, and they can simply point at this resolution and we won't be able to do a damn thing about it.

What if someone develops a killer virus that will only infect black people, through genetic research?

What if someone develops a mind-control serum that causes all gay people to commit suicide?

How's that for ethics?

And if that's too far-fetched for you, what about chemicals produced for agriculture, which may later be seen to harm the environment (anyone heard of DDT) - this resolution does not allow for these consequences.

We need legislation that allows freedom for researchers who wish to benefit society, at the same time as stopping those who would do harm, or at least limiting or stalling research in certain fields before their implications can be assessed.

The Black New World

09-10-2004, 20:20

What if someone develops a killer virus that will only infect black people, through genetic research?

What if someone develops a mind-control serum that causes all gay people to commit suicide?

How's that for ethics?

My point exactly.

That is immoral to you and me but moral to some.

It's impossible to consistently, and truthfully define morality and law should not be so subjective because that can be dangerous.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

TilEnca

09-10-2004, 23:32

Unfortunately, I feel he missed the point. The strongest argument I can make (and, I hope, have already made) is that if you say "anything goes" now, what happens when something controversial comes along in the future - some scientific research that you don't agree with or, at least, should have strict controls on.

The way it is, the resolution allows anybody to carry out any research they want, and in light of current concerns about genetic modification of anything from maize to man, this resolution could easily be exploited for ill gain with legislation being the way it currently stands. That's dangerous, regardless of whether you think science should be pushed forward or not.

OOC: By the way, yes, you spelt Galileo right, but I don't think the Church killed him.

(OOC : Yeah - they didn't kill him. They did imprison him for life and make him recant everything he said)

I accept there are dangers in this resolution as it stands, but that is the same with all things covered by laws. Guns, TV - everything can be used for good or ill.

I guess it depends on whether or not governments can be trusted to limit research only for good reasons, and not to support their own beliefs or to prevent anyone from finding something that could overthrow them or weaken their position.

I have respect for every government of every member nation (to one degree or another) but my experience shows me if the government wants to limit something, most of the time there is a suspicious reason for it.

TilEnca

09-10-2004, 23:41

What if someone develops a killer virus that will only infect black people, through genetic research?

What if someone develops a mind-control serum that causes all gay people to commit suicide?

How's that for ethics?

My point exactly.

That is immoral to you and me but moral to some.

It's impossible to consistently, and truthfully define morality and law should not be so subjective because that can be dangerous.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I understand this point of view. But let me give you another :-

The nation of GeminiLand keeps it's black population in servitude by means of a special drug. This drug is put in their food, their water and administered at birth to make sure it takes. But the black population has been told that they have a disease, and this is an antidote. If they don't take it then then will die. So they all take it.
Only government ministers at the highest level know this - the white population doesn't, neither does the purple population or the pink population.

One day a scientist comes across the truth, and publishes the news. Suddenly the government is overthrown and everyone is treated equally.

But in another reality that scientist was forbidden from researching the condition that caused this disease, and so the black population is kept in servitude for the rest of eternity.

This is why science should be free for everyone.

And my other arguement is that what if a cure for every known disease is just round the corner, but could only be found if it was conducted by what some would consider "unethical research"?

Kilmanga

10-10-2004, 02:56

TilEnca posted this on the other thread:

"An arguement could be made that if you start saying what science can be researched and what can't, you put intolerable limits on freedom of expression. Science should not be limited by the government, because it puts the government in total control of people's lives. In a fictional world a man named Galileo (whose name might not have been spelt like that) discovered a lot, but the then Church did not want to lose it's power over the people, so they killed him.

Science should be free."

Unfortunately, I feel he missed the point. The strongest argument I can make (and, I hope, have already made) is that if you say "anything goes" now, what happens when something controversial comes along in the future - some scientific research that you don't agree with or, at least, should have strict controls on.

The way it is, the resolution allows anybody to carry out any research they want, and in light of current concerns about genetic modification of anything from maize to man, this resolution could easily be exploited for ill gain with legislation being the way it currently stands. That's dangerous, regardless of whether you think science should be pushed forward or not.

OOC: By the way, yes, you spelt Galileo right, but I don't think the Church killed him.
well, im preatty sure that the church didnt kill him, just jailed him, he dieing in prison, not by poison either(or at least what i think, i did a biography on him)
besides, scientific freedoms is not an opresive one now is it
what science will do is prevent futher damage to earth, with your current level(unless u past modern), your species of man will die out from many factors, and I get to be in the front row seat for it(for i live on the Moonbase, cool space-people only region)

New Shiron

10-10-2004, 04:27

I haven't decided one way or the other on the issue, but I would like to point out some flaws in the arguements for getting rid of it.

First of all, research that is used to create a weapon of mass destruction, such as a tailored disease, although dangerous, is no more dangerous than a nation having hundreds of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles pointed at any or all.

In either case, using such would be considered not only an act of war, but would certainly bring about retatiliation and massive intervention.

Nations that restrict research are sacrificing their future. Research does not create necessarily a usuable product, weapon or cure. It simply opens windows and doors to the future. Now ethics in research are certainly important, and if the UN is concerned about unethical research practices it should specifically name and condemn those that concern it.

That is a reasonable solution to several concerns.

Nations are not bound to remain in the UN, and if they don't like how resolutions affect them, they can opt out. If the UN infringes on my internal affairs too much, I would certainly do so.

The Black New World

10-10-2004, 09:28

Now ethics in research are certainly important, and if the UN is concerned about unethical research practices it should specifically name and condemn those that concern it.

That is a reasonable solution to several concerns.

I agree.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Torching Witches

10-10-2004, 15:16

Many leaders still appear to be missing the point - that is:

That saying everything is allowed leaves the door open for people to conduct research in the future with the ultimate aim of committing horrific atrocities (as the worst case scenario).

Is that so hard to understand - that we're handicapping our ability to stamp out this situation should it arise in the future?

I'm not suggesting any practices that should be banned right now - that would be for the UN to discuss and act on at the appropriate time.

Oh, and The Black New World - how exactly do you define ethics then, if someone developing a virus in order to kill black people does not raise a question of both morality and ethics?

And TilEnca - what? When did I ever suggest banning medical research?

The current legislation is dangerous, because it allows no flexibility for the future - I'm not suggesting allowing nations to have complete control over whatever research takes place in their country, but I do suggest that some freedom be given to both the UN and the Member States to vary legislation - one size fits all doesn't work.

What if a religious nation doesn't agree with a particular type of research? This research isn't necessarily life-saving, it isn't necessarily essential to technological development, and it could quite easily be carried out elsewhere, so surely it would be unethical (as well as immoral) to force it on that nation.

The only way to legislate for scientific research is on a case-specific basis, where a panel in the UN is created to judge each disputed case on its merits, and decide the best course of action (eg. research should be banned/carefully monitored/carried out elsewhere/carried out as planned, or whatever other judgments they can come up with). There is currently no allowance for these disputes.

The Black New World

10-10-2004, 15:33

Many leaders still appear to be missing the point - that is:

That saying everything is allowed leaves the door open for people to conduct research in the future with the ultimate aim of committing horrific atrocities (as the worst case scenario). Is that so hard to understand - that we're handicapping our ability to stamp out this situation should it arise in the future?

Speaking for myself; I perfectly understand that. I support that. I do not support this repeal because it is too vague. 'immoral' and 'unsafe' are far to objective terms. This could lead to governments stopping 'immoral' research in to birth control, or medical technology. Or, to use your earlier examples, creating a 'moral' virus to wipe out 'immoral' gay people.

I'm not suggesting any practices that should be banned right now - that would be for the UN to discuss and act on at the appropriate time.
Bans quite a few of us would support. The intention of this proposal is good but the wording needs work

Oh, and The Black New World - how exactly do you define ethics then, if someone developing a virus in order to kill black people does not raise a question of both morality and ethics?
I never clamed it didn't. But the answers of some people may be differen from yours and mine.

And TilEnca - what? When did I ever suggest banning medical research?
I'll save that for TilEnca.

The current legislation is dangerous, because it allows no flexibility for the future - I'm not suggesting allowing nations to have complete control over whatever research takes place in their country, but I do suggest that some freedom be given to both the UN and the Member States to vary legislation - one size fits all doesn't work.
I don't disagree with that.

What if a religious nation doesn't agree with a particular type of research? This research isn't necessarily life-saving, it isn't necessarily essential to technological development, and it could quite easily be carried out elsewhere, so surely it would be unethical (as well as immoral) to force it on that nation.
Example of subjectivity: I wouldn't see it as unethical. This religious nation may not allow it's citizens to take advantage of another nation's research and I doubt that everyone in the nation shares in the religious convictions of the government.

The only way to legislate for scientific research is on a case-specific basis, where a panel in the UN is created to judge each disputed case on its merits, and decide the best course of action (eg. research should be banned/carefully monitored/carried out elsewhere/carried out as planned, or whatever other judgments they can come up with). There is currently no allowance for these disputes.
That is an interesting idea and I would like to see that followed through.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Torching Witches

10-10-2004, 15:46

Of course it's vague!!

The resolution leaves us vulnerable to the unknown, and so the repeal expresses that.

You seem to agree with all my arguments (or, at least, most of them) - yet you say you can't support them - huh?

A Jehovah's Witness gets into a car crash, and the medical staff try to give her a blood transfusion - are they allowed to? No, because it's against her religion. This is just the same on a larger scale. There are certain types of research I would prefer not to be carried out within my borders (such as certain genetic research), because of my nation's religion, yet I wouldn't necessarily stop one of my subjects from taking advantage of the results of that research. But as you have seen, I'm not suggesting that I take complete control - I would like the opportunity to appeal against certain practices within my borders. One size fits all simply doesn't work.

Hopefully such an alternative can be negotiated through this thread, and then we can propose something that would satisfy everybody.

TilEnca

10-10-2004, 16:28

And TilEnca - what? When did I ever suggest banning medical research?

Science covers a great deal of disciplines, including medicine.

And cures for diseases are not necessarily found when doing specific medical research. For example you could be doing research in to particle physics and discover that neutrons react a certain way when bombarded with muon radiation. And you realise that you can use that to kill cancer cells without harming the surrounding tissue.

But lo - someone banned research in to particle physics because it could be used to make a bomb, or could be used to show that the government's claim that the internet is bad for you is a lie, and the government doesn't want that to be known. So the discovery is not made.

TilEnca

10-10-2004, 16:31

Of course it's vague!!

The resolution leaves us vulnerable to the unknown, and so the repeal expresses that.

You seem to agree with all my arguments (or, at least, most of them) - yet you say you can't support them - huh?

A Jehovah's Witness gets into a car crash, and the medical staff try to give her a blood transfusion - are they allowed to? No, because it's against her religion. This is just the same on a larger scale. There are certain types of research I would prefer not to be carried out within my borders (such as certain genetic research), because of my nation's religion, yet I wouldn't necessarily stop one of my subjects from taking advantage of the results of that research. But as you have seen, I'm not suggesting that I take complete control - I would like the opportunity to appeal against certain practices within my borders. One size fits all simply doesn't work.

Hopefully such an alternative can be negotiated through this thread, and then we can propose something that would satisfy everybody.

I am sorry, but the example of the blood transfusion is totally different.

She makes the decision not to have the blood transfusion because it is against her religion. She makes the choice and it affects only her and her loved ones. But SHE makes the choice.

Banning a scientist from doing research in to a specific topic is you making a choice about EVERYONE in your nation because it is against your religion.

How is that the same?

The Black New World

10-10-2004, 16:33

A Jehovah's Witness gets into a car crash, and the medical staff try to give her a blood transfusion - are they allowed to? No, because it's against her religion. This is just the same on a larger scale.

With governments I'd say that it is more like the Jehovah's Witness Doctor forcing the atheist patient not to have a transfusion but I'm not going to because that would take us off topic.

Edit: that and TilEnca beat me

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

_Myopia_

10-10-2004, 16:58

May I just interject with the original text of the resolution?

Scientific Freedom

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Genius

Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase. Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius: Chris Meyers The Aboolot Protector of Genius Defender of Freedom Friend of the Free Realms

Votes For: 3075

Votes Against: 1336

Implemented: Thu Dec 26 2002

Looking at this, it doesn't seem to actually force governments to give scientific freedom, at least to me, it reads like an endorsement of scientific freedom for "peaceful and responsible scientists". So what's the problem? Given that this seems to be merely a statement of the UN's liking for scientific freedom (tempered with responsibility and pacifism), it doesn't stop you banning anything.

Torching Witches

11-10-2004, 11:52

Oh shit.

I obviously wasn't seeing straight the day I read that. I read it three bloody times to make sure I understood right, and still got it wrong. Just ignore me.

Good debate though.

Colin.

PS As way of recompense, you're all invited round to afternoon tea on Thursday. If you bring your own witches we can have a bonfire and firework display, and maybe even a sleepover...no, no, let's not get carried away, just the bonfire & firework display.

Torching Witches

11-10-2004, 12:10

If everybody could also rate this thread as terrible it might help save some blushes. Put a wounded thread out of its misery - it's the humane thing to do.

Torching Witches

11-10-2004, 12:23

Btw, yes I did have ulterior motives (as if you hadn't guessed).

This cloak and dagger stuff is fun. Especially the dagger bit. Burning torches and angry mobs are pretty good too. Especially if their anger is directed at witches. Gotta love the smell of hot flame on naked skin. The sound effects are good too.

_Myopia_

11-10-2004, 17:19

If everybody could also rate this thread as terrible it might help save some blushes. Put a wounded thread out of its misery - it's the humane thing to do.

Done, as requested.

On the interpretation issue, it's an easy mistake to make. I imagine it's quite possible the author intended to enforce scientific freedom, but poor wording made it simply an endorsement. You just have to look carefully to see whether the description explicity states that UN nations must take any action.